I Can Handle The Truth. Can You?

:0)

PLEASE SAY UR SARCASTIC

You did it again! I agree with you wholeheartedly. Courageous statement. I salute you. Sincerely, Vince Vance

Thank you, Vince. I don't think you are aware that you have been on my followed users' list for over two years. :) Your patriotic nature garnered my respect and you were the second person on my list at that time.

I have long admired your pro-America images and humorous memes. I'm following you. And, consider myself lucky to do so. God bless you all ways. Your friend, Vince Vance

bruh.

Party On -595vd4.jpg (click to show) - Upvote for you!

I guess I’m a terrorist now

Make up your f**king mind.

Thomas Paine couldn’t have said this better himself

omg sorry i sen that comment to the wrong person.

LOLL

fax

1) Nope.
2) She should have complied with the police. If she had, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
3) Yeah, he probably did.
4) Nope.
5) Nope.
6) Nope.
7) Nope.
8) Nope.
9) Nope.
10) Nope.
11) Probably, yes.
12) Nope.

Wow. 1 for 12. That's not good. You should go back to your high school, and apologize to all of your teachers for not paying the slightest bit of attention.

yeah truth!

finally some truth

[image deleted]

indeed it is

did you see how the cops LET those people in they were SHEWING them in there. And have you seen the pictures of John Sullivan an antifa member WHO WAS ONE OF MANY WHO WENT IN THE CAPITAL. But also there were some idiots there who were Trump supporters that did go in the Capital building.

are you stupid?

Everyone knows the true victim of racism in this country is Arby’s.

I said terrorism not racism

Imagine hating black people when the first humans are black

And what about all the far right conspiracy "nonsense"

Hmm and what exactly is happening in schools now do you know?

https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:tr171zs0069/EIP-Final-Report.pdf

1. The Election Integrity Partnership
to tag platform partners on a ticket for action. They also communicated
with the EIP’s partners in government, and could request further infor-
mation from election officials if necessary. Once a ticket reached Tier 3,
the manager decided whether to put it into a holding queue for ongoing
monitoring, assign the ticket back to a Tier 2 analyst to produce a public
blog post or Twitter thread discussing the issue, or close a ticket if it had
been resolved.
Team members from each of these tiers were divided into on-call shifts. Each
shift was four hours long and led by one on-call manager. It was staffed by a
mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysts in a 3:1 ratio, ranging from five to 20 people.
Analysts were expected to complete between two to five shifts per week. The
scheduled shifts ran from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm PT for most of the nine weeks
of the partnership, ramping up only in the last week before the election from
12-hour to 16- to 20-hour days with all 120 analysts on deck.
A note on fact-checking: the EIP was not a fact-checking organization, and in
preliminary assessments of whether an event in a ticket was potentially misin-
formation, analysts first looked to the work of others. One of the complexities
related to misleading information is that it is not always possible to verify the
claims; professional fact-checkers confronted with these situations may use
labels like “inconclusive” or “partially true” to convey uncertainty where it exists.
Where possible, our analysts identified an external fact-checking source from
news sites, credible fact-checking organizations, or statements from a local
election official when filing tickets. Analysts also used open source investigation
techniques, such as reverse image searches or location identifications, to de-
termine if images or videos tied to an incident were taken out of their original
context. Our analysts identified at least one external fact-check source for
approximately 42% of the in-scope tickets. For some tickets, it was not possible
to find an external fact-check for the content, either because no fact-checker
had yet addressed the issue, or because the information was resistant to simple
verification—for example, content based on unconfirmed or conflicting claims
from a whistleblower, conspiracy theories that claimed invisible forces at work,
and narratives based on factual claims (e.g., discarded ballots) but spread within
misleading frames that exaggerated the

You are entitled to your opinion, Octavia. There are plenty of facts to support each of those but you don't 'research', you 'regurgitate' what you hear on CNN and PMSNBC. I guess that leaves 7 things on the list that you do agree with and only 5 you don't so I guess that is more than I could expect.

1. Trump did not win

2.Babbit was not murdered she was playing stupid games and got her prise. That is what right wingers say of "anyone" who gets killed by cops. And they go to the end of the earth to defend the cop. But not this time. This time it was a Trumplican so it's "different"

3. It is easy to believe the virus did originate in a Chinese lab. So why did the meme creator repeat himsef?

4. Hydroxy does work when it used as intended. It was not intended for Covid and we know of no one it "worked on" well enough to justfiy mass production.

5. People dying from the shot? Antidotal. People are killed a million different ways. The shot has been helpful more than hurt.

6. Accusations of muder are a pathetic and childish pile of shit. Evidence is soemthing that is foriegn to Trumplicans these days.

7. Masks are not relevant says people who have no medical experience. Ok then DEMAND doctors and nurses stop using them period. It can save on your medical costs. Less over head

8. BLM are terorist? Read the fine the print because that is also what people on Jan 6th were as well.

Always fun to watch massive hypocrits with no integrity pointing fingers.

Our reply to you was civil and rational. Something people on both sides don't seem to want

TRUMP DID NOT WIN ITS THE SAME AS SAYING ITALY DIDNT WIN THE EUROS BECAUSE THE MISSER FROM ENGLAND WAS AN ILLUSION

And ever heard of the Black Death, the pestilence? A killer disease that was even more deadly as Covid
In the year 1400. THEY DIDNT EVEN HAVE LABS THEN.

'regurgitate'?
Like this repost of a stolen meme?

Oh, the irony.

A repost of a stolen Meme doesn't make it any less truthful.

You couldn't debate the Meme, so you deflected.

Well, technically, Hillary didn't kill anyone. Her hired hit men did. ; )

Babbitt WAS murdered.

Unless your definition of murder no longer includes cops shooting unarmed citizens.

So now, you support cops killing protestors?

Like I said a short time ago, you should steer clear of expressing your political views, Octavia. Stick with culture and religion.

"Fat_Elvis

Babbitt WAS murdered.

Unless your definition of murder no longer includes cops shooting unarmed citizens.

So now, you support cops killing protestors?"

So now you do not* support cops killing protestors?

So now you call cops killing protestors, murder*?

Definitions, redefined according to partisan agenda.

I'm having a bit of trouble following what you're trying to say here, Modda.

If you're saying that in the past, or under certain conditions, I have supported cops killing protestors, you're just wrong. Flat, DEAD, wrong. Unless you can show me the post where I said it. But you can't, because I didn't.

Calling someone out as a hypocrite just because you *think* you know how they view things, is pretty weak.

Yes, you are having trouble following it.

Solution: Reading it over and over until you've actually read it before arguing against MULTIPLE things I did not say.

Allow me to facilitate that:

"Modda

"Fat_Elvis

Babbitt WAS murdered.

Unless your definition of murder no longer includes cops shooting unarmed citizens.

So now, you support cops killing protestors?"

So now you do not* support cops killing protestors?

So now you call cops killing protestors, murder*?

Definitions, redefined according to partisan agenda."

Hope this clarifies things!

What’s cops murdered protesters besides Babbit?

I can't even understand your question, so go ahead and tell me what it is.

It’s in plain English. What cops murdered protestors besides Babbitt? You are trying to draw a hypocritical conclusion yet you don’t have another incident of a cop killing a protester?

I’m not for cops killing protestors or rioters unless they are a clear and present danger. Babbit did not pose a clear and present danger by jumping through a window. No non lethal method was deployed nor was “stop or ill shoot heard” not even a “don’t do it.” No warning and the cop shot her. I believe that violates DC police policy. The fact you support a cop opening fire with or without warning on someone who was not a lethal threat is the true hypocrisy.

Would you require a copypaste of my post also?

The language is pretty plain, and in fact, those words of someone else I quoted are the words of someone else I quoted and also placed another word or two in to get a more accurate and wider picture of what they attempted to convey but fell short of...
How is this so confusing to so many including the very someone who is the someone whose words are the words I quoted?

btw, I didn't read past the first line of the fake argument you posted.

Your post is there for all to see. It’s not my fault your argument is flawed.

Good grief, kid, what argument?

He plays at it when it refutes his narrative. He comprehends fully, he just ignores inconvenient facts

We 100% agree that shooting unarmed people is murder. The reason why right wingers are so full of shit about Babbit?

1. Everytime a cop shoots unarmed poeple on the streets "right wing" cop lovers claim they got what they asked for. And defend the cops.

Why is this now suddenly different? Easy she was a Trump supporter.

2. Back The Blue people suddenly don't like "particular" cops. We wonder why lol even on PRO COP Face Book pages they are attacking the DC police.

Cop lovers have exposed themselves. They do nort believe in "law and order" they believe in subjective cherry picked "law and order"

The unarmed individuals are usually trying to overpower the cop to take his weapon, trying to run him over, or dragging the officer with his car trying to escape

And, occasionally, are part of a riot calling for death of political individuals. In those cases, shooting a civilian, especially with a backpack and trying to climb over a barricade, is absolutely enough of a justified threat to shoot.

Hmmmm Tayvon Martin had a backpack, was trespassing at the time. and physically attacked the individual that shot him.

Well, I don’t know anything about Tayvon Martin but Trayvon Martin did have a backpack but he was not trespassing, unless your definition of trespassing is a young black man walking in a mostly white neighborhood. Once Zimmerman began following him on foot, against 911’s dispatchers advice, Martin may have trespassed to hide and later tried to confront his stalker. In any case, Zimmerman was acquitted so in this particular comparison, despite your inaccuracies, yes you could say both Babbitt and Martin were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Though, I would further argue that Babbitt’s criminal intent was far more obvious.

He jumped the fence into a private gated community. His “Stalker”was a resident of the neighborhood and within 150 yards of his home.

To hide from Zimmerman. Before that, he was just waking the streets. Neighbors can be stalkers. Just not every stalker is going to follow around someone with the intent to confront.

What was criminal intent..please present you evidence. The difference between Martin and Babbit is he assaulted Zimmerman

Are you saying Zimmerman shouldn’t have shot Martin or are you saying Babbitt’s shooter should’ve waited until she has directly attacked a legislator or himself before he open fired?

The reason I view Martin more as a victim than Babbitt is Zimmerman had no authority here and was the one who may have influenced Martin’s actions that could be described as unlawful actions purely because he has tried to flee, and when that didn’t work, he fought.

Babbitt’s actions were in no way influenced by the shooter until she committed an unlawful action.

Babbitt: Joined a riot, (it stopped being a protest when they) broke into and illegally entered the building. She tried to climb a makeshift barricade that was specifically put there to prevent her access. She was shot as a result. Her actions were not justified, her shooters actions were.

Martin: May have had criminal intent (we’ll never know because he is dead), he jumped a fence (which is trespassing) but only because he was being followed by Zimmerman. (There was no way Martin knew who Zimmerman was nor his intent.) Zimmerman’s persistence to follow lead to Martin to switch from flight to fight and Martin attacked Zimmerman. If you’re being chased by a guy who is overtaking you, flight is not an option. Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.

If Martin survived the assault and Zimmerman was shot by his own gun, theoretically Martin could have easily claimed self-defense as well.

You can’t say the same for Babbitt.

I just don’t understand your argument. It is just isn’t consistent at all.

Martin was a known burglar Babbit had never been arrested for anything , had never demonstrated a violent nature and served her country in the military for 15 years. You just can’t shoot people because you think they are a threat they have to demonstrate a violent intent. Martin was found in possession of burglar tools and stolen jewelry previously.

False, both Babbitt and Martin had no criminal record. While he had those tools and was found in possession of jewelry, that is correct, he was not a known burglar.

You’re right, you can’t just shoot people because you think they are a threat or demonstrate violent intent.

Babbitt did demonstration violet intent by taking part in a riot, trying to climb a barricade, and was shot for it.

Martin chose to attack his stalker and was shot for it.

That is where their similarities end.

yeah Travon was starting a used jewelry and home improvement business...thats why he had the giant screw driver and assorted jewlry in his backpack.

Babbit was attempting to overpower American Democray and here is the part you ignore the chanting of "Hang Mike Pence" and so on.

She was a threat. She played her stupid game and got her stupid prise thats what right wingers love to say until now.

At least BLM and Antifa protest and riot over Police corruption. You want dirty cops until it's your turn to be abused.

We honestly don't care for your double standards and hypocrisy. You make us sick with your Pro Police BS.

We believe in Maximum Freedome and Liberty. We prefer Dangerous Freedom and Liberty.

Murder? Robbery? Rape? those are real crimes.

And if cops would focuse on REAL crime there would not be so much hate towards them.

Watching cops break the law and violate the constitution over traffic rtickets and other BS misdemeanors is Anti American and we say f**k ALL cops.

As I said in another post, no matter how many times I see it on full display here in the flip, the hypocrisy of liberals believing that cops can, under certain circumstances, (as in when they're protesting *for* something the lib is against) shoot unarmed citizen, never ceases to amaze me.

This has zero to do with your BS double standards. We have literally watched cops claim a persons "fists" are a weapon.

Oh? So now your good if the Portland police open up on the Antifa thugs for trying to roast them alive in a building the set fire to and tried to cement the door closed.

Well they did it, but somehow I doubt you would have been ok with them opening up and taking out a dozen leftist punks.

Of course Octavia wouldn't, and that's why the only reply forthcoming is the sound of crickets.

Octavia just gives up when backed into a corner by someone using logic against his/her irrational points of view.

I'll just have a guess and say you were projecting why you don't sometimes respond to other comments or when Blue doesn't answer a basic question like... if Babbitt was Antifa, would he still call her a hero for her actions?

Yeah, but when you do reply, it always sounds like you're whining, and about to cry.

It would be easiest to list the specific points of view you have that are rational. Definitely a far shorter list.

She just said she would if they did.

What you believe is irrelevant.

And you failed to answer the question if it was Antifa who broke into the Capitol, if Babbitt was Antifa, would you still call her a hero for her actions?

You're lying... Again.

BLM And Antifa broke into private businesses. You defended BLM And Antifa.
BLM And Antifa posed a direct threat to public officials when they threw Molotov cocktails and bricks at police officers. You defended BLM And Antifa.

If this was an Antifa member shot while trying to break into a federal building you would say nothing at all. You would avoid the topic like the plague.

If you did speak up you would manipulate the truth to fit your lying narrative and say he wasn't a member of Antifa, you would say "He's just an individual looking to destroy" and you would demand evidence of him being a member of Antifa. When you are shown the proof you would crawl away without acknowledging the proof, and you'd limp onto a different Meme to spew more of your nonsense.

You are lying...again.

You did defend BLM And Antifa. You made up a ridiculous narrative like you always do and said " it was just a few opportunists looking for an excuse to destroy. I have the screenshot of when you made up that ridiculous lie. I'll post it after you admit you tried to defend BLM Antifa with that lie, or wait for you to lie and say you never said it. Typical Octavia you're throwing a temper tantrum and demanding evidence when you constantly refuse to provide evidence. Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

I have never once defended them or anyone else throwing weapons at police. You've never said anything against it either. Your silence was deafening... until Trump supporters were responsible. Now you use it as a talking point. If Tomorrow, Blm and Antifa threw bricks at the police, you wouldn't say a word. You would cherry pick your arguments.

You sure as f**k better show a screenshot of you saying that. I'll be waiting. While I'm waiting dig up other screenshots of you saying you'd be okay with police shooting Antifa members breaking into private businesses, or don't private businesses count. Causing over a $ billion in destruction is perfectly okay in your mind, but crawling through a window in the middle of the day and you deserve to be executed.

The debate is about you manipulating the truth to fit your lying narrative and say he wasn't a member of Antifa. Oh look, you're attempting to manipulate the truth to fit your lying narrative by claiming he might be a conservative disguised as Antifa. You did exactly what I said you always do.

Just a few days ago, somebody made a claim about the demographics shift in California, I found out what I had said was incorrect, and I acknowledged that. Over the past 7 years you've been asked a few hundred times to show evidence. You citing one instance out of hundreds doesn't help you. It proves my claim.

Hatred and Vitrol are the main tools of the left, i can cite numerous examples I know you'll ignore.

"she was trying to enter a barricaded room where she wasn't allowed to be, with the likely intention of hurting people"

I've not heard of anything indicating her intention was to hurt people. It may seem like that, but it may also seem like she wanted to do what many others were doing and that was to cause a ruckus and have a laugh.

Look at Jake Angeli in that pic, did he seek to hurt anyone? He was is there, prancing about, yelling, posing.... and that's it.

Was Ashli Babbitt armed? Weapon drawn? Did she have handcuffs, zip ties, duct tape, rope, anything on her to restrain people? Was she threatening anyone? Any postings on social media or anything from her family saying she had any malicious intent?

Even if there was any such intention, thinking and planning are not doing.

Granted, she was breaking into a restricted area, but that is the only illegal act she commited that we know of.

----------------------------------------------

As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea where you get the patience to deal with the flurry of styrofoam fang confetti being spewed by our esteemed colleagues, but yeah.

More lies. More pathetic excuses. More attempts to manipulate the truth to fit your lying narrative. More hypocrisy. You'll deny it all. You refuse to admit you are everything I've proven you to be.That is your main problem You'll say it isn't true when i have shown you proof.
You really need to take a close look at who you truly are. You don't see it because you refuse to see what is obvious to everyone else.

You can't go a single day without this site.You need to argue with people to occupy your time.
I would feel sorry for you, but it's pointless, you'll say you have a great life, which would be another lie. If your life was great you wouldn't need to argue this site.

Babbitt was shot and while she lay dying there were some who tried to save her life but capitol police actively prevented them from doing so. There is footage of this.

It's one thing being shot down when you're breaking the law and putting others in danger and quite another when you're shot down and then the shooters purposely denying possible life saving actions. The outrage over thugs like George Floyd being denied but not Babbitt is telling.

While you can claim protestors as trespassing, Babbit was also breaking and entering. Not just damaging property but part of a riotous mob that had intent to harm.

If you’re defending Babbitt as a hero but are for stand your ground laws, then you are a hypocrite. And your poor attempt to establish liberals for pointing this out as hypocrite only makes your argument for these laws to exist all the more shallow. It doesn’t make the left look unsympathetic. It just makes you the hypocrite.

I’ve also heard the argument, and I agree, that any unarmed civilian posing as a threat in any other way to the officer or another person can be shot as well. But these need to be handled case by case with all the circumstances.

From the facts presented, Babbitt was not merely a protestor. She was a soldier betraying her country for her loyalty to one man. Donald Trump.

Wow. Though it happens over and over again here on the flip, it absolutely never ceases to amaze me when someone who I suspect (of course, I don't know for sure...) absolutely supported groups like Antifa and BLM reigning destruction and fire over federal buildings ins Portland and Seattle (because you know... orange man bad) but also supports the MURDER of an unarmed citizen, under ANY circumstance.

I know you used the word "If" when talking about me possibly defending Babbitt as a hero, but your sentiment is obvious. I'm sure you'll appreciate me clarifying what should have been obvious to you; NO, I am not describing, nor do I believe Babbitt or anyone else who fails to peacefully protest is a hero. Other than ill-informed preconception, I have no idea why you might think that. Explain to me again, why I'm the hypocrite?

Using the argument you appear to be making, and has been made over and over by those whose position on protestors flipped 180 degrees when it comes to the Capitol riots, the logical extension of whatever ill-conceived point you're trying to make is that the govt had every right to kill every one of the protestors. What, you say??? Yes, because they all fit into every (or most) of the categories that you've ascribed to Babbitt.

Would you feel any differently about this, if that had happened?

Is it only a matter of scale being the deciding factor in how you think?

Because it it's not, then you're clearly saying you would have no problem with the govt gunning down every single one of those protestors. And I'm the hypocrite? Hardly.

And your last comment is about as much bull shite as I've seen packed into two sentences, not only here on the flip, but anywhere.

It's interesting that you can absolutely suspect that I support Antifa from my comment since they had nothing to do with it. It just seems like a poor attempt to derail my point that in Babbitt's case, she was not murdered but rather killed while obviously committing a crime with further unlawful intent. Harm to another person or persons.

As I said, if you can defend every cops who shoots and kills any unarmed person, then person who shot Babbitt deserves the same benefit of the doubt. Not every cop who shoots someone is a murderer but if the cop shoots a civilian, unarmed or not, who was otherwise posing a dangerous threat to others, then they're well within that right regardless of who they are or what political spectrum they fall. Just as BLM is wrong to assume in every case an unarmed black person shot doesn't deserve to be, it is wrong for someone to support "Blue Lives" that every situation calls for an unarmed civilian to be shot. In Babbitt's case, she had numerous opportunities to back down and did not. She was shot as a result and regrettably killed. Her actions lead to her death more than the bullet that ripped through her body.

Octavia already posed this very question to another if they would feel any different if the supposed political ideologies between the people were flipped. I'll happily answer. If Babbitt had been Antifa, I would still personally consider her a terrorist, yes. Based on those circumstances.
If she had been black and BLM called her a hero, I would be saying the same thing to them as I would anyone calling her a hero now. But she wasn't BLM and she wasn't Antifa. She was jsut another Trump Supporter radicalized by lies. And, hopefully, no more will continue to fall for it but you can see how some might be concerned when they keep making the false claim that Trump won the 2020 election. I doesn't matter who's confirmation she was trying to stop. It isn't that hard for me to say. Is it hard for you?

No, of course I would have a problem with government "gunning down every single one of those protestors." They aren't doing that, though. Again, your perspective is one of extreme generalization. You have to generalize to make your point but you fail to account for the victims that fall through the cracks when you assume everyone killed by a cop is a criminal or that every person killed by a cop is a victim. I don't make that mistake. You, and many others, do.

And another downvote party opportunity on libtard commentary, so Yay for that.
Thank You, Jesus for making liberals so verbose and giving me the chance to downvote all their total shit nonsense comments.

[image deleted] I disagree with all insane imgflip imbeciles. 'nuff said.

Trump did not win the election.
Yep, Trump did not win. The White guy who spent most of his campaign hiding in his basement and didn't have enough supporters to fill a high school gymnasium received more votes than Americas first Black President, Obama.

Babbitt was not murdered.
She was murdered. She was unarmed and posed no threat and was shot by a police officer.
There goes your lying narrative about police officers only shooting unarmed black men.

Hillary Clinton is not a killer.
Yep she's not a killer. Everyone has 53 friends that committed suicide.

BLM are not terrorists.
They are terrorists. They terrorize communities when they loot and burn private businesses.

Masks are not irrelevant.
They are irrelevant Dr Fauci Feb 2020 said that store-bought face masks would not be very effective at protecting against the COVID-19 pandemic.

👍 Up is not down and down is not up. Only a fool believes otherwise.

You make some good points here.

The fact they only wish to troll you proves them to be hypocrites.

👏